Lightweight sleeping bags

I got myself the vango venom 300 a couple of years back, quite like it,
liked the £75 price, at that price I wouldn't be too disappointed if it got
trashed. I have been comfortable in it down to something like +4°C (I don't
sleep very warm) Its original weight was 835g and I reduced that to 705g by
cutting off the unnecessary stuff (including the zip) The bag is designed
for sleeping on the left shoulder which is not good for me however that is
easily resolved by using the bag inside out!

"Simon Caldwell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Having inadvertently entered myself for this year's LAMM, and only
possessing a super duper heavy weight winter sleeping bag, I find
myself on the market for a new lightweight version. It needs to be
around 800g or (preferably considerably) below.

So far, I've managed to confuse myself by searching the web and found
all sorts of possibilities, for instance:

Rab Quantum 200
PHD Minimus
Kimmlite 490
ME Dewline
Vango Venom 225
Mountain Hardware Phantom

the list goes on and on.

I tend to sleep warm, but want something that's going to do me for the
KIMM (end October) as well as the LAMM (June), just in case I don't
hate it enough never to want a repeat performance.

And I'm not serious enough to be prepared to have a sleepless night
due to shivering uncontrollably.

It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently - the
Kimmlite, Quantum and Minimus have similar specifications but are
rated down to 0, 2 and 5 C respectively.

So in short - does anyone have any experience of any of the above (or
anything similar), can anyone recommend (or de-recommend) anything,
etc etc?

TIA

Simon

--
York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk

"Simon Caldwell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kimmlite 490

I used a Q490 in the lakes in late October last year, and found it just the
wrong side of uncomfortable on a not especially cold (but breezy) night. I
therefore availed myself of Field and Trek's "no questions asked" refund
policy, and sent it back.

I had been wondering about going for the warmer QKimmlite 700 this year, but
have recently been looking at the Vango Venom 300 instead, as it seems to be
rated the same, 150 g heavier but £120 cheaper...

Tom

Simon Caldwell said:

Having inadvertently entered myself for this year's LAMM, and only
possessing a super duper heavy weight winter sleeping bag, I find
myself on the market for a new lightweight version. It needs to be
around 800g or (preferably considerably) below.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently - the
Kimmlite, Quantum and Minimus have similar specifications but are
rated down to 0, 2 and 5 C respectively.

Everyone has different ideas about ratings. IIRC Chris T's testing has
suggested that synthetic bag ratings tend to be rather more optimistic
than down bag ones, though there's variation within each as well. From
personal experience of down bags I'd say ME's are about fair, though
take the low temperatures quoted as wanting extra clothes, Rab's are, if
anything, quite conservative. Many report that down is more comfortable
over a wider temperature range, though I've not used a synthetic since I
was pre-teen so can't comment personally.

Down bags will give the best warmth to weight ratio /but/ they do suffer
more without something underneath you. This can be the back pad from
your pack or a cut down sleep mat (I've got a KIMM Komedy Karrimat which
is two thirds length and half thickness which is actually okay and takes
the worst knobbles out of the ground and is enough if it's not too brass
monkeys) combined with any excess clothes (your raintop is an obvious
contender for extra ground cover).

I've got an ME Dewline: it's been pretty good and I use it as a general
light bag if weight and bulk are an issue. It doesn't have a zip which
reduces overall utility a bit but cuts weight and bulk which are more
important for a MM. I'd be happy[1] taking it on the KIMM, though it
/can/ be outrageously unseasonally cold on KIMMs as they book shocking
weather specially, and if there was snow down I'd probably say to hell
with the extra weight and take the Lightline, which is significantly
warmer but quite a bit heavier, while still not ridiculously so.
Roos has a Rab Quantum 600 and if that's anything to go by the Q200 will
have exemplary materials, workmanship and warmth for its weight (the 600
lofts so well it looks like someone's inflated it with a pump!). It's a
minimalist bag, like the Dewline, and if you can afford it it's probably
as good a combination of warmth and tininess you'll find. MEs are very
nice though I think the best Rabs are a little nicer still, albeit for
more money.
I've yet to slap eyes or hands on a PHD bag, but they seem to be
similarly well thought of to Rab and ME AFAICT.

Pete.

[1] assuming I'd be happy on a KIMM at all, that is... haven't done one
for over 10 year and since one of my knees decided to stop bending a few
km from the finish of that I decided that that was a good one to retire
on! Though I am foolishly thinking some vague LAMMish and SLaMMish
thoughts again, though Roos will probably consider me to slow to enter
either with her.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

I tend to sleep warm, but want something that's going to do me for the
KIMM (end October) as well as the LAMM (June), just in case I don't
hate it enough never to want a repeat performance.

And I'm not serious enough to be prepared to have a sleepless night
due to shivering uncontrollably.

It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently - the
Kimmlite, Quantum and Minimus have similar specifications but are
rated down to 0, 2 and 5 C respectively.

So in short - does anyone have any experience of any of the above (or
anything similar), can anyone recommend (or de-recommend) anything,
etc etc?

I've got a PHD Minimus which works very well. You'll be fine in June
but depending on the weather it's probably a bit out of its depth in
October, you'll definitely need all your clothes on IME as well as at
least a 3/4 length sleep mat.

I've been down to around 5 degrees C in mine (March in the South Downs
and Sept' in the Pyrenees) at which point I didn't find it to be very
comfortable. I didn't have to pack up in the middle of the night or
anything but I've since bought another PHD bag for the colder times of year.

It seems to me that temperature ratings are not particularly useful -
people feel the cold to different degrees (ouch :-) and I think it can
make a difference how much you've had to eat - a belly full of carbs and
fat will see you through a cold night much warmer than an empty one.

To sum up I'd recommend the Minimus for the June event without
reservation but in October you will need some warm wear on as well as a
sleep pad of some description.

Hth,

--
Boo

get a western mountaineering ultralite. 500grams (1.10lbs). good down
to -6 (20F).

-stu

Quoted message said:

get a western mountaineering ultralite. 500grams (1.10lbs). good down
to -6 (20F).

Erm, I think that should be 1 lb 10 oz ? Which is 740 grammes or
thereabouts.

Tbh I don't know how much difference in warmth you can expect between
good quality down bags having the same weight. After all they use
similar fabrics and similar quantities of similar quality down so should
by rights end up being quite - how shall I put it ? :-) - similar ? Of
course the shape and general design will affect things to an extent, but
I doubt that you would see a change from +5 degrees C to -6 degrees C
without an increase in the quantity of down and hence the weight. All
of the OPs quoted mfrs are respected high quality names who know their
way around.

Hth,

--
Boo

Boo said:

Quoted message said:

get a western mountaineering ultralite. 500grams (1.10lbs). good down
to -6 (20F).

Erm, I think that should be 1 lb 10 oz ? Which is 740 grammes or
thereabouts.

the onlineconversion.com says 740grams is 1.63 pounds.
(which is obv not 1lb 63ounces.. i'm all confused now. hehehehe..
does math.. mm.. pounds to ounces. +10.. mmm about 740 grams yes
grr non base10 pounds n [censored] non metric ounces grrrr).

/stu puts on his asshat

Quoted message said:

Tbh I don't know how much difference in warmth you can expect between
good quality down bags having the same weight. After all they use
similar fabrics and similar quantities of similar quality down so should
by rights end up being quite - how shall I put it ? :-) - similar ? Of
course the shape and general design will affect things to an extent, but
I doubt that you would see a change from +5 degrees C to -6 degrees C
without an increase in the quantity of down and hence the weight. All
of the OPs quoted mfrs are respected high quality names who know their
way around.

WM make _very_good_ sleeping bags.

all temp ratings must be taken with a salt lick ofcourse.

i guess it comes down to the least amount of the highest quality down...

tnf cats meow is a good synthetic bag for 740gms weight. mfr rating of 15F
if one is thinking about getting soaking wet....

feathered friends are also very good down bags...

--
-stu

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Simon Caldwell said:

Having inadvertently entered myself for this year's LAMM, and only
possessing a super duper heavy weight winter sleeping bag, I find
myself on the market for a new lightweight version. It needs to be
around 800g or (preferably considerably) below.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently

I agree, it's a completely unnecessary and ridiculous state of affairs and has
had me practically tearing my hair out. I bet it's a great money making scam for
the manufacturers.

Quoted message said:

Everyone has different ideas about ratings. IIRC Chris T's testing has
suggested that synthetic bag ratings tend to be rather more optimistic
than down bag ones, though there's variation within each as well.

I recently purchased his book
<URL:http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0071423206/> after recommendations
on here, to which I can now add mine. He tested 15 bags, 8 synthetic, 6 down and
one combination. He's a warm sleeper and was chilly in all the synthetics at
higher temperatures than their ratings and warm at the rated temperature in 5 of
the down bags, the exception being the down bag with no fill in the bottom.

He thinks it's wise for many people to add 5 or 10 degrees to down bag ratings
and more for synthetics.

Daytona

"Daytona" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently

Quoted message said:

I agree, it's a completely unnecessary and ridiculous state of affairs and

has

Quoted message said:

had me practically tearing my hair out. I bet it's a great money making

scam for

Quoted message said:

the manufacturers.

I thought I read somewhere a while ago that they were going to implement
some kind of European standard for sleeping bags in an effort to resolve
this problem?

Stu said:

WM make _very_good_ sleeping bags.

Yes, but then again they're not the only ones...

Quoted message said:

feathered friends are also very good down bags...

And like WM come from the other side of the Atlantic and aren't widely
distributed over here. Not that that makes them bad in any way as
sleeping bags, but all else being more or less equal (and with a quality
product like a Rab Quantum I think it basically will be) then you've got
easier comeback with any problems if you use a UK sourced bag with major
UK retailer distribution and also direct customer support a national
'phone call away.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Stu wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

feathered friends are also very good down bags...

Quoted message said:

And like WM come from the other side of the Atlantic and aren't widely
distributed over here.

I didn't realise that was a brand, I had this image of someone travelling
with a flock of geese to snuggle up with at night :-)

(the self-carrying/flying sleep bag system!)

Roos

Roos Eisma said:

I didn't realise that was a brand, I had this image of someone travelling
with a flock of geese to snuggle up with at night :-)

(the self-carrying/flying sleep bag system!)

One of the early (presumably fictional) stories published about how a
man might fly to the moon in the Middel Ages involved being carried
there by a flock of geese tethered to a chair. If you could fly to the
moon with this then a mere Munro should be pretty straightforward, or at
the very least they could be used for a bit of anti-grav for your luggage!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

I thought I read somewhere a while ago that they were going to
implement some kind of European standard for sleeping bags in an
effort to resolve this problem?

Yep, read this yesterday (from here: <URL:http://www.cotswold-
outdoor.com/html/gearguides/sleeping_bags/classification.jphtml>

Gear Guides
You are here: Home : Gear Guides : Sleeping Bags :

Sleeping bag temperature ratings - EN 13537 – a new standard

A new advisory European standard for sleeping bags - EN 13537 - has been
created to help ease the comparison of models from different
manufacturers. Through 2005 new temperature information and labelling
will start to appear. The information will show four test results –
upper limit, comfort, comfort lower limit and extreme.

‘Upper limit' - This is the highest temperature at which an average
male user is able to have a comfortable nights sleep.

‘Comfort' - This is the temperature at which an average female user
should experience a comfortable nights sleep. On average women sleep
colder than men so this rating is some degrees above the ‘comfort lower
limit' for a man.

‘Comfort lower limit' - This is the lowest temperature at which an
average male user should experience a comfortable nights sleep whilst
sleeping in a curled up body position.

‘Extreme' - This is a survival rating where the user is likely to
suffer health damage such as Hypothermia. It should be treated with the
utmost caution and not be relied on for general use.

A few points to note:

1. It is generally accepted that under previous tests the ‘comfort
lower limit' was based on a fit male user with enough experience to get
the best performance from a sleeping bag. To build in an extra margin of
safety, the new test is based on a user with an average level of fitness
and experience and this is generally reflected in lower value results.
This does not mean there has been a sudden reduction in the performance
of existing models but is simply due to a change in the testing criteria.

2. Temperature ratings are a guideline only. Your age, sex, weight and
fitness all play a part in how you experience cold and you will need to
consider these when making your choice. Be realistic and if in doubt,
consider a warmer model.

3. Always use an appropriate sleeping mat to get the best performance
from your bag.

4. Cotswold quotes the ‘comfort lower limit' rating which is a
realistic starting point for your selection process.
The Cotswold team are on hand to offer help and advice with any questions
you may have. Please feel free to ask and we will do our best to point
you in the right direction.

"AndyP" <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

"Daytona" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
> all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently

Quoted message said:

I agree, it's a completely unnecessary and ridiculous state of affairs and

has

Quoted message said:

had me practically tearing my hair out. I bet it's a great money making

scam for

Quoted message said:

the manufacturers.

I thought I read somewhere a while ago that they were going to implement
some kind of European standard for sleeping bags in an effort to resolve
this problem?

The standard (EN13537) came into force in 2002. I believe it's only just become
illegal for UK manufacturers and distributors to sell bags not tested under this
regime. Trading Standards are the people who will enforce this.

Before that, the most widely recognised standard was BS4745, commonly known as
the tog test, introduced in 1960. This appears to have been widely ignored by
bag manufacturers, hence the new legislation.

This is the best reference I've found
<URL:http://www.mammut.ch/mammut/uploadedFiles/Sleep%20Well_Pt1_E.pdf> (it's
1.5Mb - took about 5 minutes to download on my dial-up). Chapter 10 on page 33
gives a quick reference table of expected bag weights for different
temperatures. If a bags rating is outside of this, the rating should be regarded
as suspicious, and verified.

Daytona

Surely this wouldn't count as a Munro ascent tho. . . . . . .

:-)

druidh

In message <[email hidden]>, Daytona
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"AndyP" <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

"Daytona" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

>> It's impossible to compare different bags from the technical specs as
>> all manufacturers seem to show temperatures differently

Quoted message said:

I agree, it's a completely unnecessary and ridiculous state of affairs and

has

Quoted message said:

had me practically tearing my hair out. I bet it's a great money making

scam for

Quoted message said:

the manufacturers.

I thought I read somewhere a while ago that they were going to implement
some kind of European standard for sleeping bags in an effort to resolve
this problem?

The standard (EN13537) came into force in 2002. I believe it's only just become
illegal for UK manufacturers and distributors to sell bags not tested
under this
regime. Trading Standards are the people who will enforce this.

The new standard is not mandatory. It's not illegal to sell bags not
tested under this regime and not all bag makers will be following it. If
challenged makers only have to show that their products perform
according to the claims they make for them and that the tests they have
used are reproducible. Companies can choose which test methods they use,
they don't have to pay the extremely high costs for EN13537 testing. As
long as companies are confident with their independent tests they
should, if challenged, be able to commission an EN test.

Many experts think that EN 13537 is not realistic. I am very unhappy
with the extreme ratings, which I think is very misleading. You won't be
warm at this temperature. You will be very cold. You just shouldn't die
though you may get hypothermic.

Quoted message said:

Before that, the most widely recognised standard was BS4745, commonly known as
the tog test, introduced in 1960. This appears to have been widely ignored by
bag manufacturers, hence the new legislation.

This is the best reference I've found
<URL:http://www.mammut.ch/mammut/uploadedFiles/Sleep%20Well_Pt1_E.pdf> (it's
1.5Mb - took about 5 minutes to download on my dial-up). Chapter 10 on page 33
gives a quick reference table of expected bag weights for different
temperatures. If a bags rating is outside of this, the rating should be
regarded
as suspicious, and verified.

People still need to take into account whether they are cold or hot
sleepers, what shelter they are using, how tired they are, whether
they've eaten recently, how humid it is, how thick their sleeping mat
is, how much clothing they are wearing, whether the bag is roomy (which
makes it cooler) or close-fitting.

Having a rough comparative standard - and that's all it is - can be
useful but it's still only a guide. A bag with a -5 comfort rating under
EN 13537 will not necessarily keep you warm at -5.

* The air of uk.rec.walking was filled with the delicate perfume
* of violets, as Daytona <[email hidden]> descended on a shaft
* of golden sunlight, and announced:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

This is the best reference I've found
<URL:http://www.mammut.ch/mammut/uploadedFiles/Sleep%20Well_Pt1_E.pdf> (it's
1.5Mb - took about 5 minutes to download on my dial-up). Chapter 10 on page 33
gives a quick reference table of expected bag weights for different
temperatures. If a bags rating is outside of this, the rating should be regarded
as suspicious, and verified.

Good info - thanks!

Jim Ford

Chris Townsend <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

The new standard is not mandatory. It's not illegal to sell bags not
tested under this regime and not all bag makers will be following it. If
challenged makers only have to show that their products perform
according to the claims they make for them and that the tests they have
used are reproducible. Companies can choose which test methods they use,
they don't have to pay the extremely high costs for EN13537 testing. As
long as companies are confident with their independent tests they
should, if challenged, be able to commission an EN test.

You're quite correct; I misread the explanation.

Quoted message said:

Many experts think that EN 13537 is not realistic.

Because it doesn't factor in people wearing more in cold weather and different
sleeping mats ? Given that humans are annoyingly variable, I can't see the point
in going too far down the realism route once it's realistic for an average
benchmark customer. Standards are more to ensure a consistency of measurement
which AFAIC is lacking at present, making it unnecessarily difficult to make
informed choices.

Quoted message said:

I am very unhappy
with the extreme ratings, which I think is very misleading.

All the info. I've seen makes it plain as can be - "The EN13537 Extreme rating
is a survival rating for a standard woman.". What's misleading about that ?

Quoted message said:

You won't be
warm at this temperature. You will be very cold. You just shouldn't die
though you may get hypothermic.

There's no accounting for peoples stupidity. Perhaps they should rename it the
Darwin Award rating <g>

Quoted message said:

People still need to take into account whether they are cold or hot
sleepers, what shelter they are using, how tired they are, whether
they've eaten recently, how humid it is, how thick their sleeping mat
is, how much clothing they are wearing, whether the bag is roomy (which
makes it cooler) or close-fitting.

Sure, there's plenty of guides out there saying just this, if people can be
bothered to do the research.

Quoted message said:

Having a rough comparative standard - and that's all it is - can be
useful but it's still only a guide.

Looking at it from my pov as a newcomer to backpacking I believe having a
consistent measure with which to compare many products is essential. I'm
perfectly capable of then finding out information to factor in an adjustment for
kit & personal characteristics.

Daytona

In message <[email hidden]>, Daytona
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

The new standard is not mandatory. It's not illegal to sell bags not
tested under this regime and not all bag makers will be following it. If
challenged makers only have to show that their products perform
according to the claims they make for them and that the tests they have
used are reproducible. Companies can choose which test methods they use,
they don't have to pay the extremely high costs for EN13537 testing. As
long as companies are confident with their independent tests they
should, if challenged, be able to commission an EN test.

You're quite correct; I misread the explanation.

Quoted message said:

Many experts think that EN 13537 is not realistic.

Because it doesn't factor in people wearing more in cold weather and different
sleeping mats ? Given that humans are annoyingly variable, I can't see
the point
in going too far down the realism route once it's realistic for an average
benchmark customer. Standards are more to ensure a consistency of measurement
which AFAIC is lacking at present, making it unnecessarily difficult to make
informed choices.

I'm not saying some form of standard isn't a good idea. It definitely
is. But I don't think there should be an extreme rating.

The problems with EN 13537 are going to be discussed at a conference at
Leeds University in March. Unfortunately I can't attend but I'm looking
forward to reading the paper afterwards.

www.technitex.org/Survival2005.doc

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am very unhappy
with the extreme ratings, which I think is very misleading.

All the info. I've seen makes it plain as can be - "The EN13537 Extreme rating
is a survival rating for a standard woman.". What's misleading about that ?

What is a survival rating? What is a standard woman? How many people
will think the extreme rating is the temperature at which the bag will
still keep them warm? How many shop staff will sell it as the
temperature at which a bag will keep people warm? I think it is
potentially very misleading.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You won't be
warm at this temperature. You will be very cold. You just shouldn't die
though you may get hypothermic.

There's no accounting for peoples stupidity. Perhaps they should rename it the
Darwin Award rating <g>

That would be less misleading :-)

Unfortunately there are plenty of people who will misunderstand it and
plenty more who'll just glance at the tag, see -10 or whatever and
assume the bag will be warm at that temperature.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People still need to take into account whether they are cold or hot
sleepers, what shelter they are using, how tired they are, whether
they've eaten recently, how humid it is, how thick their sleeping mat
is, how much clothing they are wearing, whether the bag is roomy (which
makes it cooler) or close-fitting.

Sure, there's plenty of guides out there saying just this, if people can be
bothered to do the research.

The problem is that people who can be bothered to do the research don't
need EN 13537.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having a rough comparative standard - and that's all it is - can be
useful but it's still only a guide.

Looking at it from my pov as a newcomer to backpacking I believe having a
consistent measure with which to compare many products is essential. I'm
perfectly capable of then finding out information to factor in an
adjustment for
kit & personal characteristics.

As it's not going to be compulsory it won't be consistent though.
Companies will say their bags accord with it from their own independent
testing.

I'd rather see companies having to state the loft of their bags along
with the weight of the fill. That would be a good basis for comparison.

Having written about sleeping bags many times over the years I would
certainly like to see a sensible consistent measure. It would make my
job much easier. I'm not convinced EN 13537 is it though.